a methodology to develop a framework for ecosystem ......a methodology to develop a framework for...
TRANSCRIPT
A Methodology to Develop a Framework
for Ecosystem Service Assessments
across Multiple Scales (regional to national)
ACES Dec 2012
Simone Maynard
PhD Scholar – Australian National University
Ecosystem Services Project Manager - SEQ Catchments
0403 940 055
If you can’t measure it, you can’t (sustainably) manage it!
Caring for our Country: Aim ... seeks to achieve an environment
that is healthy, better protected, well managed and resilient, and
provides essential ecosystem services in a changing climate.
NSESD goal ... development that improves the total quality of life,
both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological
processes on which life depends.
Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy: ... reflects the
intention of all Australian governments to ensure our biodiversity
is healthy, resilient to climate change and valued for its essential
contribution to our existence.
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act:
... to promote a co-operative approach to the protection and
management of the environment involving governments, the
community, land-holders and indigenous peoples ... promote
ecologically sustainable development through the conservation
and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources.
...
Rationale –
International/National Scale
http://www.worldrtsday.org/
• Environmental-Economic Accounting (UN SEEA; WAVES);
• Economic valuations (TEEB);
• Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (UN);
• Networks and collaboration (Ecosystem Services Partnersip);
• Linking biodiversity science and human well-being (DIVERSITAS);
• Status and trends (poverty alleviation) (MA);
• Policy responses (UK NEA; US EPA);
• Community and consumer education: eco-labeling (Rainforest Alliance)
• Payment schemes for multiple benefits (Forest Trends);
• Business sustainability reporting (WRI; WBCSD);
• Wetland assessment (Ramsar);
• Climate change strategies (IPCC);
• Nature/ biodiversity conservation strategies (CBD);
• …
Rationale –
State/Regional/Local Scale
• Statutory Planning Documents
• NRM Plan – targets
• Integrated Catchment Management
• Restoration initiatives
• Local Govt Planning Schemes and Community
Plans
• State of Region/State of Environment
• Climate change mitigation sites
• Nature Conservation Strategies
• Water Resource Strategies
• Business Strategies
• Property Management Planning
Applied Research:
South East Queensland (SEQ),
Australia
South East Queensland (SEQ)
Ecosystem Services Project
Aim:
- to identify, measure and value the ecosystem services provided by SEQ.
the SEQ Ecosystem Services Framework
- to provide the tools for a consistent approach to assessing the ecosystem services derived from the SEQ region; and
- to incorporate ecosystem services into natural resource policy, planning and management (mainstreaming).
But how, what, when and why …?
A Methodology to Develop a Framework for Ecosystem Service Assessments
across Scales (regional to national)
Framework:
• The MA describes the importance of developing a basic conceptual framework - solving
and/or addressing complex issues; and encouraging a consistent approaches:
…given the complex interactions between ecosystems and human well-being, a
prerequisite for both analysis and action is agreement [across stakeholders] on a basic
conceptual framework.
• a framework is a … structure to solve or address complex issues… providing both guidelines
and special tools to work with (WRI).
Methodology:
• looks beyond current frameworks, to determine ‘why’ that process was applied, and why
‘that’ information and ‘those’ decision support tools were developed.
• deliberately non-prescriptive - aims to provide recommendations or criteria for consideration.
Scale:
• Regional to national – lessons learnt from other nations
Learning from experience …how, what, when and why?
Three Lines of Enquiry (LoE’s):
• LoE 1: Processes –
What is an appropriate process to develop an ecosystem services
framework?
• LoE 2: Information –
What type of information is required to support an ecosystem services
framework?
• LoE 3: Decision Support Tools –
What type of decision support tools are required to support an ecosystem
services framework (i.e. to apply and/or communicate information derived
from ecosystem service assessments)?
… synergies, interconnectedness, …
Research Approach
Three pronged approach:
• Applied research (regional scale):
South East Queensland, Australia
• Multiple Case study analysis (national scale):
(multiple ES, multiple ecosystems, advanced stage, English speaking, influential)
– US Ecosystem Services Research Program
(14 semi-structured interviews)
– UK National Ecosystem Assessment
(17 semi-structured interviews)
• Document/literature reviews:
multiple ways
Applied Research:
South East Queensland, Australia
Ecosystem Services Project
Coordinating Organisation: SEQC
LoE 1 - Process:
Identify and apply an appropriate
process for developing an ecosystem
services framework in a ‘real world’
setting.
LoE 2 - Information:
Identify and develop information to
support an ecosystem services
framework
LoE 3 – Decision Support Tools:
Identify and develop the decision
support tools to conduct and
communicate ecosystem service
assessments
Case Study 1:
United States
Ecosystem Services Research Program
Coordinating Organisation: US EPA
14 Semi-structured Interviews -
LoE 1: Process
LoE 2: Information
LoE 3: Decision Support Tools
Case Study 2:
United Kingdom
National Ecosystem Assessment
Coordinating Organisation: UNEP
17 Semi-structured Interviews -
LoE 1: Process
LoE 2: Information
LoE 3: Decision Support Tools
Do
cu
me
nt
an
d lit
era
ture
re
vie
w:
revie
w d
ocu
ments
an
d lite
ratu
re o
n e
co
syste
m s
erv
ices a
nd
esta
blis
he
d
fram
ew
ork
s. .
Document and literature review: ecosystem service frameworks and methodologies
to develop these frameworks – synthesise information across case studies to develop
recommendations on an appropriate methodology.
Do
cu
me
nt
an
d lit
era
ture
re
vie
w:
revie
w d
ocu
ments
an
d lite
ratu
re to
id
en
tify
ap
pro
priate
ca
se
stu
die
s; co
nd
uct
ba
ckgro
un
d r
ese
arc
h o
n c
ase
stu
die
s; u
se
to
de
ve
lop
inte
rvie
w q
ue
stio
ns.
SCALE
REGIONAL STATE NATIONAL
Project /
Key Features
SEQ Ecosystem
Services Project
US Ecosystem Services
Research Program
UK National
Ecosystem Assessment
Driving Forces Main Driver: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Other Driver: Population growth
Main Driver: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Other Driver: Decrease in Budget
Main Driver: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Other Driver: Climate change; CBD Biodiversity Targets
2010; European Policy
Call for Research SEQ Stakeholders through the Natural Resources
Management Plan workshops and the Regional
Landscape and Open Space Advisory Committee
US Environmental Protection Agency DEFRA based on a report by the House of Commons
Environmental Audit Committee
Coordinating Sector Non-government organisation Federal Government Non-government organisation
Coordinating Organisation SEQ Catchments US Environmental Protection Agency United Nations Environment Program
Funding Organisation Originally AU Gov't. changed to State Gov't when
Au Govt changed and changed funding programs US Gov't
DEFRA; Natural Environment Research Council;
Economic and Social Research Council; Northern
Ireland Environment Agency; the Scottish Gov't; the
Countryside Council for Wales; and the Welsh
Assembly Gov't.
Scale Property – Local - Regional
Area: approx. 22 000 km2
Population: 3 500 000
Local – National
Area: 9 181 859 km2
Population: 313 478 205
Local – Multi-national
Area: 243 610 km2
Population: 62 262 000
Program Leader 1 x Project Manager 1 x Program Manager 2 x Co-Chairs
Program Aim(s)
1. To develop an 'agreed' ecosystem services
framework for SEQ.
2. To incorporate ecosystem services and the
framework into natural resource management,
planning and policy in SEQ.
Vision: Contribute to a comprehensive theory and
practice for characterizing, quantifying, and
valuing ecosystem services, to ensure that their
relationship to human well-being is consistently
incorporated into environmental decision making.
Mission: Provide the information and methods
needed by decision makers to assess the
benefits of ecosystem goods and services to
human well-being for inclusion in management
alternatives.
Goal: To transform the way decision makers
understand and respond to environmental issues
by making clear the ways in which our policy and
management choices affect the type, quality and
magnitude of the goods and services we receive
from ecosystems.
1. Assess the status and trends of ecosystems and the
services they provide at multiple spatial scales.
2. Describe key drivers of change affecting ecosystems.
3. Examine plausible futures (scenarios) for ecosystems
and the services they provide.
4. Outline response options to secure continued
delivery ecosystem services.
5. Value the contribution of services to human well-
being.
Number of People assigned
to the Program
1.5 assigned
(over 190 involved)
Originally 272 assigned
(over ? involved)
? assigned
(over 500 involved)
Duration of program 4 years 5 years 2 years
Budget AU$ 80,000 (approx. per year) US$ 70 million (approx. per year) £ 1.3 million (approx. over 2 years)
Line of Enquiry 1: Process
SEQ – extremely adaptive and participatory
• the multi-disciplinary nature of ecosystem services requires a multi-
disciplinary approach to information collection;
• legitimacy (fairness) to stakeholders would be higher through a participatory
approach;
• the coordinating organisation being a non-government organisation would
require wider input from stakeholders to increase credibility (authoritative,
believable and trusted) information for policy and planning applications;
• expert local opinion was recognised as an important resource, particularly when information and data is limited;
• involving a wide range of stakeholders would improve the saliency (relevance)
to decision making at multiple scales and for different applications;
• the resources (including time, number of staff, expertise and funds) limited
alternative approaches to developing the methodology; and
• a participatory approach would improve social learning (learning while doing)
amongst stakeholders.
Were there discussions with other departments/ offices/
agencies/ organisations about working collaboratively? (1 US)
• a more collaborative approach to the program across federal
agencies was recognised as preferable a "relationships across
employees that could make it work", past experiences and the agencies'
objectives and missions were considered different enough to deter a more
collaborative approach on a day to day basis.
• Scale was not considered an issue to engaging stakeholders "because all local
governments and stakeholders have groups that aggregate up and we certainly
could have gone to them as representatives of these stakeholders"
Based on your experience what are the benefits and dis-benefits of a
government agency coordinating this research?.
Benefits:
• Better leverage of other agencies – it is more natural and easy for government agencies
to work together than mixing across sectors
• The US EPA was considered to be in a unique position to propose a nationally
standardised accounting and classification system - could support the creation
of markets (e.g. cap and trade)
• A consistent stream of funding within government
Dis-benefits:
• Inflexibility of government - the number and magnitude of rules and regulations (e.g.
community surveys, workshops) and releasing information - "sometimes regulations can
provide a hindrance to achieving [research goals] because they often focus on one
problem at a time rather than taking a systems approach – also they can be short sighted"
• The US EPA is recognised by others "as coming in over the top" with regulatory
solutions - as a Researcher [this] can hinder your position because "no-one wants to interact
with someone who might turn around and regulate them" - Gaining access to properties for
research purposes is often difficult as "some are afraid you might sue or fine them and/or tell
them what to do with their property". One respondent said "you can really disrupt a local
process with, 'We’re from the federal government. We’re here to help you'”
• Often released material was considered "old" by the time it had been through the
peer review process
What is the role of government in developing ecosystem
service frameworks? (9 UK)
Co-Chairs, government representatives from the England, North Ireland, Scotland and
Wales (Client Group - funders), coordinating organisation (UNEP).
• as funders of the program; to have a say where money is being spent; "to have a
mechanism for potentially locating more money or for stopping it if it was all proving
to be a waste of time";
• as one of the stakeholders, to have ownership of the program;
• to ensure the outcomes have policy relevance;
• to ensure the outcomes have "traction";
• to be able "to understand and communicate the information to their
ministers and then the ministers can talk to the other ministers";
• to oversee the program;
• for data collection purposes, including access and consistency; and
• to contribute to agenda setting and developing the major questions.
Why the program should be coordinated
independent of government, such as:
• "the need for it [the program] to be an independent review";
• "it [the program] requires independent scientific leadership"; the "leader needs
scientific credibility (which usually is not held in government or their position
in government taints their credibility)";
• "an individual leading it from one specific agency, isn’t so
favourable to the other agencies";
• "it needs to be kept at arm’s length of Politicians";
• “if the government itself did it, its legitimacy is less in the eyes of many other
stakeholders";
• "UNEP were attractive to them [the British Government] as they are actually one
step outside the normal UK institutions" [so are less bias to politics and
stakeholder agendas];
• collaborating is easier for non-government organisations "... they have
greater flexibility".
What type of information is required to support ecosystem services
frameworks?
1.Biodiversity
2.Ecological Units
1. SEQ - ecosystems/biomes
2. US – ecosystems (wetlands, streams, coral reefs)/environmental classes
3. UK - habitats
3.Ecosystem Functions (SEQ, UK)
4.Ecosystem Services
– 3 different definitions – Benefits; FEGS; FES
– 65 ES assessed across programs
– 19 common ES
5. Ecosystem Valuation
– SEQ – well-being
– US – monetary (place-based) and human health and well-being (national
and place-based)
– UK – individual well-being (monetary £ and health +/-) and shared social
values /
Line of Enquiry 2: Information
Line of Enquiry 2: Information
What is the role of biodiversity in ecosystem service
assessments? Is biodiversity and ecosystem services or not?
SEQ 10 US 17 UK
No
- healthy functioning ecosystems,
increases flexibility and
resilience, not tradeoffable
7 = No
- habitat (1), people cared about
- this still did not make it an ES
(5), a “structural thing" (2), FEGS
are dependent upon b’versity (5),
subjective nature and our
inability to actually measure and
value (2).
1 = No
- habitat types
- 2 = Yes
- extrinsic value
15 = Yes
- linkages between people and
other species, when it is
appreciated as biodiversity,
charismatic species, IES and
FES
UK ... it is quite an important question to solve at the
very beginning because a lot of people have been working in the
biodiversity paradigm for a really long time ... and we’ve spent all this
time convincing governments that’s what they should be worried about
... and to suddenly now turn around and say, “Oh, it’s about ecosystem
services” without making the link is quite dangerous ... and I think you
have the potential then also to alienate so many stakeholders.
US … as a nation "the US is not quite oriented towards
biodiversity".
US … "biodiversity is not an EPA mandate - it [the EPA]
tended to be more regulatory towards pollutants and did not have the
authority to legislate land-use key to protecting biodiversity".
• SEQ – mapping, website
• US – mapping, modelling, scenarios, website
• UK – mapping, (modelling in economic valuation),
scenarios, website
Multiple Stakeholders
Resource (time, staff and money) dependant!
Line of Enquiry 3: Decision Support Tools
Key Findings
• Two main approaches – in-house and participatory
• Multi-disciplinary approaches essential
• Social learning - policy driven/drive policy
• Policy relevant not policy led
• Well-being and $ valuations
• Importance of ‘visual’ decision support tools
• A mapping/modelling plan is required up front for consistency
• A range of tools are required – capacity of stakeholders - access to tools and
information
• Flexibility of application
• Culture of nations and missions of organisations will influence process,
information and decision support tools
Process is as important (if not more)
as product!
Thank You
SEQ ES Framework Website
www.ecosystemservicesseq.com.au
Simone Maynard
PhD Scholar – Australian National University
Ecosystem Services Project Manager – SEQ Catchments
0403 940 055